Past Election Trends

[ShapeShifter]

Does it mean anything that for the past 6 consecutive presidential election the number of Democratic votes have increased?

According to this trend, I predict a Kerry win in 2004.

But, something tells me that Bush is going to win.

[zachman]

That doesn't mean much. It went up in 1984 because Anderson was not running. In 1988 it increased because Dukakis worked better than Mondale. Turnout was high in 1992, but that fact is surprising. Gore got nearly as high a percentage as Clinton in 1996, because Perot was not in the race. I don't think this fact means too much. In the same way the Republican turnout has increased in the last three presidential elections.

[ShapeShifter]

That doesn't mean much. It went up in 1984 because Anderson was not running. In 1988 it increased because Dukakis worked better than Mondale. Turnout was high in 1992, but that fact is surprising. Gore got nearly as high a percentage as Clinton in 1996, because Perot was not in the race. I don't think this fact means too much. In the same way the Republican turnout has increased in the last three presidential elections.

Okay, taking the past 6 election for the Democrats and past 3 election for the Republicans - I predict a 57 million to 54 million defeat of Bush. This is not scientific but I love playing with numbers.

[zachman]

Turnout jumped from 96-105 million from 1996-2000, so I will estimate a turnout of 115 million, so ShapeShifter's predictions should be relatively accurate. I don't think negtive campaigning will lower turnout.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

That doesn't mean much. It went up in 1984 because Anderson was not running. In 1988 it increased because Dukakis worked better than Mondale.

Nah, it increased because Bush Sr. was a much weaker candidate than Reagan.  Reagan was a man of the people, a man that ordinary folk could connect with and relate to.  Bush was, to put it mildly, a pencil-necked geek.  He was wimpy and whiny, and just didn't inspire voters the way Reagan did.

Dukakis should have done a lot better than he did.  Remember that double-digit lead right after the '88 conventions?  What followed was the worst-managed presidential election campaign by a nominee in recent memory.  That absurd ad where he pops out of the tank like a prairie dog.  His refusal to rebut Bush's Willie Horton attacks.  He managed to look even *more* wimpy and deviod of personality than Bush, which was quite an accomplishment.  So, I don't think it was Dukakis working better than Mondale that increased Democrat votes.

More than anything, what caused the increse in Democrat votes was a pendulum swing from the Reagan landslides.

I don't think the pendulum is swinging today.  I think it's sitting like a rock in the middle, refusuing to budge - and politicians today are too scared to give it a push.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly.

[angus]

Shapeshifter, that's good.  Well, not good as in good for Kerry, but good as in interesting.  It might be more neutral if you do that best-fit line on a plot of votes for party X and extrapolate to 2004.  That's probably what you did for the democrats for the past six contests.  Do the same thing for the republicans for the same number of electoral contests to make it consistent.

[DarthKosh]

Turnout jumped from 96-105 million from 1996-2000, so I will estimate a turnout of 115 million, so ShapeShifter's predictions should be relatively accurate. I don't think negtive campaigning will lower turnout.

116 but it will be close.

[angus]

Dukakis should have done a lot better than he did.  Remember that double-digit lead right after the '88 conventions?  What followed was the worst-managed presidential election campaign by a nominee in recent memory.  That absurd ad where he pops out of the tank like a prairie dog.  His refusal to rebut Bush's Willie Horton attacks.  He managed to look even *more* wimpy and deviod of personality than Bush, which was quite an accomplishment.  So, I don't think it was Dukakis working better than Mondale that increased Democrat votes.

So true.  I had an entry-level job working for the Dukakis-Bentsen campaign.  Mostly telephone canvassing and polling.  It was the worst-run campaign I'd ever been a part of, no doubt.

[ShapeShifter]

Shapeshifter, that's good.  Well, not good as in good for Kerry, but good as in interesting.  It might be more neutral if you do that best-fit line on a plot of votes for party X and extrapolate to 2004.  That's probably what you did for the democrats for the past six contests.  Do the same thing for the republicans for the same number of electoral contests to make it consistent.

I used the average percentage increase for both party - one with the past 6 election and one with the past 6 election for democrats and 3 election for republicans - I got pretty much the same results. But, can you exaplain more what you are talking about? Thanks

[MarkDel]

Angus,

You worked on the Dukakis campaign? That's pretty funny. At the same time on Election Day '88, I was organizing the get out the vote drive for the Bush campaign in Central New York. Those were the days...

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

So true.  I had an entry-level job working for the Dukakis-Bentsen campaign.  Mostly telephone canvassing and polling.  It was the worst-run campaign I'd ever been a part of, no doubt.

The Dukakis-Bentsen Campaign: So bad, their own campaign workers turned into Republicans .

[angus]

Get bent, both of you.  I should have known I'd be asking for a big helping of crow for admitting that!  

[MarkDel]

Angus,

Sorry...it did take a big man to admit that!!!

[classical liberal]

"Get bent"

What's the origin of that expression?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Get bent, both of you.  I should have known I'd be asking for a big helping of crow for admitting that!  

Nothing to be ashamed of.  Back in '89, I wrote "DUMP GEORGE AND DANNY!" in big, colorful letters on my Trapper-Keeper.  Oooh, I was taking a big risk there, coming out as Anti-Republican in Suburban D.C.  Kinda like taking a pro-Soy stance at a vegan convention.

[angus]

dammit!  Shapeshifter I had a really detailed answer for you and posted and got the old 'shame-on-you-silly-bastard-for-not-leaving-enough-time' message!  Basically, go back 6 (or some number of contests) and look at the total number of votes for the Democratic candidate each year.  Plot that number as a function of year.  So there's one point every 4 years, right?  The points will show some scatter (up and down fluctuations) and probably not lie on a straight line, but you can use the linear regression tool in a spreadsheet program such as SigmaPlot or MS Excel to find the line that makes the best fit through that data.  Or just do it with graphing paper and a ruler.  Then extend that line to 2004.  Do the same thing with the republican candidate and see what you get.  Now, mind you, it may not have any relevance, but it might be a fun mathematical exercise.  And it would certainly have greater basis in reality than the straw polls regularly conducted on this forum.

rwn:  well, I never looked it up, but always took its etymology as self-evident.

[MarkDel]

Beef,

I was in the same area at that point, I moved there in January of '89 a few weeks before Bush's swearing in. In '89, I was living in Rosslyn, Virginia, where were you located then?

[classical liberal]

Get bent, both of you.  I should have known I'd be asking for a big helping of crow for admitting that!  

Nothing to be ashamed of.  Back in '89, I wrote "DUMP GEORGE AND DANNY!" in big, colorful letters on my Trapper-Keeper.  Oooh, I was taking a big risk there, coming out as Anti-Republican in Suburban D.C.  Kinda like taking a pro-Soy stance at a vegan convention.

Where in Suburban DC?  Some areas were stauchly GOP back then.  Loudon County, VA and Howard County, MD are good examples.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Beef,

I was in the same area at that point, I moved there in January of '89 a few weeks before Bush's swearing in. In '89, I was living in Rosslyn, Virginia, where were you located then?

Republican Bowie, MD, although I went to grade school in Democrat Landover Hills.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Get bent, both of you.  I should have known I'd be asking for a big helping of crow for admitting that!  

Nothing to be ashamed of.  Back in '89, I wrote "DUMP GEORGE AND DANNY!" in big, colorful letters on my Trapper-Keeper.  Oooh, I was taking a big risk there, coming out as Anti-Republican in Suburban D.C.  Kinda like taking a pro-Soy stance at a vegan convention.

Where in Suburban DC?  Some areas were stauchly GOP back then.  Loudon County, VA and Howard County, MD are good examples.

PG County, which back then was Republican in the White parts, Democrat in the Black parts.  I'm White, but my parents were bleeding hearts.  Also, integration via creative busing got the schools nicely mixed up - something I'm very grateful for.

[ShapeShifter]

dammit!  Shapeshifter I had a really detailed answer for you and posted and got the old 'shame-on-you-silly-bastard-for-not-leaving-enough-time' message!  Basically, go back 6 (or some number of contests) and look at the total number of votes for the Democratic candidate each year.  Plot that number as a function of year.  So there's one point every 4 years, right?  The points will show some scatter (up and down fluctuations) and probably not lie on a straight line, but you can use the linear regression tool in a spreadsheet program such as SigmaPlot or MS Excel to find the line that makes the best fit through that data.  Or just do it with graphing paper and a ruler.  Then extend that line to 2004.  Do the same thing with the republican candidate and see what you get.  Now, mind you, it may not have any relevance, but it might be a fun mathematical exercise.  And it would certainly have greater basis in reality than the straw polls regularly conducted on this forum.

rwn:  well, I never looked it up, but always took its etymology as self-evident.

Thanks. I will get back at you when I get it done.

[CTguy]

That doesn't mean much. It went up in 1984 because Anderson was not running. In 1988 it increased because Dukakis worked better than Mondale. Turnout was high in 1992, but that fact is surprising. Gore got nearly as high a percentage as Clinton in 1996, because Perot was not in the race. I don't think this fact means too much. In the same way the Republican turnout has increased in the last three presidential elections.

Okay, taking the past 6 election for the Democrats and past 3 election for the Republicans - I predict a 57 million to 54 million defeat of Bush. This is not scientific but I love playing with numbers.

I agree with this prediction.  But I am afraid Kerry will get huge margins in the Northeast and California and lose to Bush in the electoral college.

I could see Kerry winning by as many as 5 million votes and still losing the electoral college.

[ShapeShifter]

I did my average percentage method for each state. My result was same as 2000 but with NH, FL, and NV going to Kerry. once again, I know this is not scientific but I love playing with numbers.

[Gustaf]

An interesting trend is that only one Democrat has recived more than 50.09% of the vote since the end of WWII, LBJ in 1964...Carter is the onle other Dem candidate to get past 50%, in 1976.

[angus]

I did my average percentage method for each state. My result was same as 2000 but with NH, FL, and NV going to Kerry. once again, I know this is not scientific but I love playing with numbers.

Me too!  So you should always carry a big wad of cash around with you, just in case you meet someone else who likes numbers.  

Put Nevada back in the grown-up pile, if you don't mind.